Cooper v. Escobedo et al

1 26-cv-03680-CAB-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANTEA COOPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
G. ESCOBEDO and
JOHN/JANE DOE,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-03680-CAB-DEB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION TO PROCEED
IFP
[Doc. No. 4]
On June 17, 2026, Plaintiff Dantea Cooper, a former state prisoner proceeding
without counsel, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 	[Doc. Nos. 1–2.] 	On August 7,
2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion and dismissed this civil action without
prejudice. [Doc. No. 3 at 3.] The Court’s Order denying IFP noted that Plaintiff had “not
submitted a sworn Form AO 239 or other comparable instrument. 	His request [was]
unsworn, stating only that he is ‘an unemployed indigent homeless man.’ . . . The Court
therefore [did] not have sufficient information backed by declaration, oath, or affirmation
from which to evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to pay the requisite filing fee.” [Doc. No. 3 at 3
(emphasis added).] On September 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to proceed IFP
Case 3:26-cv-03680-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2 26-cv-03680-CAB-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on the Form AO 239 provided by the Clerk of Court. [Doc. No. 4.] For the reasons stated
below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s renewed IFP motion.
I. 	IFP MOTION
Plaintiff has neglected to sign and date the affidavit portion of the motion, [see Doc.
No. 4 at 1], that requires him to “declare under penalty of perjury that the information” he
provided “is true[.]” Form AO 239 at 1; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (a court may authorize
suit without prepayment of fees “by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a
statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor”); Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council v. Rowland,
939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to
exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s
requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); CivLR
3.2(a) (directing IFP movants to file “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets
which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security”); see also CivLR 3.2(a)(1)–(7)
(listing numerous financial statements that movants must submit in their “declaration . . .
under penalty of perjury”); CivLR 3.2(f) (requiring submission of financial affidavit “at
the time the suit . . . is submitted for filing”).
Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not complied with the IFP affidavit requirement
or the Court’s order to submit his motion on a completed AO 239, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s renewed IFP motion. 	This denial, however, is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
Plaintiff refiling an IFP motion that cures the above-noted deficiencies.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained, the Court:
1. 	DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, [Doc. No. 4];
2. 	GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave in which to re-open his case by
either: (a) paying the full $405 civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) in one lump
sum; or (b) filing an motion to proceed IFP that includes a properly executed AO 239; and
Case 3:26-cv-03680-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3 26-cv-03680-CAB-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. 	DIRECTS 	the 	Clerk 	of 	Court 	to 	provide 	Plaintiff 	with 	another
blank AO 239 (Rev. 01/15). 	If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order by either paying
the full $405 civil filing fee in one lump sum or by submitting a complete AO 239 IFP
application within 45 days, this civil action will remain dismissed without prejudice based
on his failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and without any further Order of the
Court.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
1 Plaintiff is again cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by submitting a properly supported Motion to
Proceed IFP, his complaint will be screened before service and may be dismissed sua sponte. 	28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if it determines that the action: “(i)
is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.
2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners[.]”).
Case 3:26-cv-03680-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3